I've never understood how elitism is a bad thing; look to your right. Look to your left. Do you want an average person in charge? No, you don't. You really don't.
I've never understood how elitism is a bad thing; look to your right. Look to your left. Do you want an average person in charge? No, you don't. You really don't.
So, in middle school (the one my parents ended up threatening to sue, forcing them to send me to the local high school for higher classes, etc...), I was at one point pulled aside by the vice principal and some of the administration.
Basically, they told me that what I wanted (students being taught to the level of their ability) was "elitist." They asked me what it meant, and interrupted by saying that it "basically means that the upper 1% run everything." The expounded how segregating more intelligent students into more rigorous classes was discriminatory. They went on and on about how "elitism" was unfair, about how everyone should be held back to the same level.
After this tirade, they asked me, "Do you really want to be an elitist?"
When seventh grade Rym responded with "Considering that I am in the upper 1%, I think that all sounds wonderful: where do I sign up?", well, the rest was history.
And this is what I don't get. Look, if someone is going to be in charge of me, they need to be better than me at things. If you're going to make laws, be smarter than me!
And this is what I don't get. Look, if someone is going to be in charge of me, they need to be better than me at things. If you're going to make laws, be smarter than me!
There is nothing wrong with elites being in charge as long as they work towards the greater good and not lining their own pockets.
The problem is that we select for wealth-elites rather than intellectual-elites.
Why can't we select for both?
If wealth was defined by "value generated that benefits a majority of the people in the society the person seeks influence over within that person's life time" or some other wording that excludes "old money in a swiss bank account" and "slashing/burning local companies and moving them overseas for the sake of funding a G5 and a 300ft yacht", I'd be in for that.
How does letting people who are wealthy run things help people who are not? The whole point behind having a meritocracy where the intelligent and intellectual run things is that there is a good chance that in their enlightened self interest they would design things for the good of all, helping both themselves and others. Rich people often only design systems to help other rich people, which is what we are seeing with lobbying and the political process today. When they help everyone it is philanthropy and is the exception rather than the rule.
I don't see how the smart could easily design a society that takes things from average people and only helps the smart. Hurting the average man only makes things worse and less efficient. (Things such as not funding public education, etc. It hurts society as a whole, and smart people see that.) However, We need an elite that is not only intelligent, but compassionate as well. These two things as a pair fix all problems.
Smart definitely on average correlates with non-evil. Were that not the case, there would be a lot more mayhem in the world. A smart engineer who was also evil would bring entire nations to their knees.
Wealthy correlates almost entirely to inheritance.
If a person of average ability and intelligence gets rich solving a problem in a clever way that betters society, I'd be just as inclined to consider him for leadership as much as someone who took the harder math classes in high shool.
Vision, the desire to solve problems and the ability to see that vision through are not exclusive to people with IQ's in the top percentile.
The problem is that the culture of graft and corruption makes politics an undesirable pursuit to the people you'd wasn't to be in charge.
But there an numerous instances in history where "smart" "intelligent" people make choices for the "uneducated" that do not actually correlate with the good of all. Biases blind us all. e.g. Christian missionaries in the colonial era, or just the majority of colonialism and post-colonialism, the tendency of foreign aid to encourage detrimental structures of society, encouraging use of cash-crops and petroleum-based fertilizer in the "third-world", etc.
Not to say that electing intelligent people is bad. It's only bad if people mistake intelligent with all-knowing (which ideally wouldn't happen, but it's hard to avoid).
According to the latest NBC/WSJ poll, among black voters Obama is leading Romney 94 percent to 0 percent. Of course, there were only 12 black voters in the survey, so the sample is hardly representative, but it makes an amusing story. EDIT: I think I was misreading the polling sheet: it probably meant 12 percent of respondents were black, which means 115-124 respondents.
I had some similar experiences in school as Rym, without the parental support. I also had some experiences being automatically segregated out to the top of groups... and that had other issues. Either way, vote Joe's dog.
Comments
Actually, my dog might be preferable, but he just isn't interested in many things that don't concern food or fetching squeaky toys.
Basically, they told me that what I wanted (students being taught to the level of their ability) was "elitist." They asked me what it meant, and interrupted by saying that it "basically means that the upper 1% run everything." The expounded how segregating more intelligent students into more rigorous classes was discriminatory. They went on and on about how "elitism" was unfair, about how everyone should be held back to the same level.
After this tirade, they asked me, "Do you really want to be an elitist?"
When seventh grade Rym responded with "Considering that I am in the upper 1%, I think that all sounds wonderful: where do I sign up?", well, the rest was history.
I WANT elite people running the country.
I don't see how the smart could easily design a society that takes things from average people and only helps the smart. Hurting the average man only makes things worse and less efficient. (Things such as not funding public education, etc. It hurts society as a whole, and smart people see that.)
However, We need an elite that is not only intelligent, but compassionate as well. These two things as a pair fix all problems.
Wealthy correlates almost entirely to inheritance.
Vision, the desire to solve problems and the ability to see that vision through are not exclusive to people with IQ's in the top percentile.
The problem is that the culture of graft and corruption makes politics an undesirable pursuit to the people you'd wasn't to be in charge.
Not to say that electing intelligent people is bad. It's only bad if people mistake intelligent with all-knowing (which ideally wouldn't happen, but it's hard to avoid).
Of course, there were only 12 black voters in the survey, so the sample is hardly representative, but it makes an amusing story.
EDIT: I think I was misreading the polling sheet: it probably meant 12 percent of respondents were black, which means 115-124 respondents.